Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

The miscellaneous section of the village pump is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please try to post within news, policy, technical, proposals or assistance rather than here.

Please sign and date your post (by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature icon in the edit toolbar).

« Archives, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80

Miscellaneous archive

Discussions older than 7 days (date of last made comment) are moved here. These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Appying for adminship

Hi,i am applying for adminship but i don't know how.How can we?I clicked on to edit but i don't know how.How can we nominate ourselves,then? tdxiang 203.124.2.14 28 June 2005 09:16 (UTC)

WP:RfA (yours would be a self-nomination, at the bottom); but let me warn you that a good deal of experience is expected and if you don't even know how to apply I can pretty much guarantee you won't get it. Everyking 28 June 2005 09:19 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good absolute bare minimum bar right there :) -- Cyrius|✎ 29 June 2005 16:49 (UTC)

More than experience in the raw, admins need experience in the nooks and crannies of the Wikipedia, what goes on behind the scenes, what is and isn't acceptable, and how things are done, how to do things right, how to bring two or three different viewpoints together to make one viewpoint that works for everyone, where to go to get help and things like that. It's a good thing that you ask your question here instead of some horribly inappropriate place, but not so good that you don't know where to apply for adminship. Also, it seems like self-nominations are less likely to be approved than editors who are nominated by others. I think that if you really are a good admin candidate, there will come a time when someone will nominate you like this: "I nominate tdxiang, he's such a pillar of the community that I thought he already was an admin a long time ago." and almost everyone will say something like "tdxiang isn't an admin? how did that happen? Of course I support him", and somebody will surely say oh, look at this [1] he doesn't even know where to find RfA" and another will say "oh, so what, look at all the valuable contributions he's made, he's come a long way since then" and somebody will mention 2 or 3 of your big deal contributions, someone else will point out where you were instrumental in solving a POV conflict, and generally everyone or most everyone will support your candidacy. If you get to the point where you think it would happen like that, post a note to my talk page and I'll be glad to nominate you (assuming I agree that you are a top-notch candidate. I'm not an admin, but the folk I've nominated for adminship all passed, I think. The bottom line is, first, become a good admin, in the ways you can, without the 'special powers', and you will likely be well qualified when the time comes to vote on it. Pedant 2005 July 4 07:31 (UTC)

That's the best description of the process I've ever read! humblefool®Have you voted in the CSD poll yet? 5 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)

You forgot the 1 or 2 vandals/trolls you angered in the exact week of your RfA and who will oppose you for completely bogus reasons. --cesarb 5 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

TOCright

An article on my watch list had an edit recently. When I looked at it I found it was insertion of {{TOCright}}. Fine.

A glance at the user contributions page of the editor Special:Contributions/Ian_Pitchford though showed 90% (or lots anyway) of their edits were solely addition of {{TOCright}} to articles??

I wasn't sure where to flag this editor inserting {{TOCright}} "everywhere" (one article at a time?) for other wikipedians to cast an appraising eye. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts are supposedly for mild-to-moderate conflict. Likewise, RFC is to complain about users/articles. I really just wish to raise his contributions for discussion for others to see if they think they're problematic or not. I don't wish to create conflict where none exists. Hence, making an RFC which'd imply a 'complaint' about him is unsuitable. It seems harmless albeit odd? He does make occasional valid contributions too. He just seems to have a a mission 90% of time involving Table of Contents - {{TOCright}}. My reaction was "huh??" Thoughts? Whitehorse1 | 28 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)

If you think this is a potential issue, step 1 would be to politely ask this user about it (I suggest you do this, right now!). If, after discussing this with the user, you think there is a conflict (for example, you think it's not a good idea but he won't stop), then you might consider other steps suggested at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Anytme you have a dispute with a user, always talk to the user first. -- Rick Block (talk) June 28, 2005 14:32 (UTC)

More sheer curiosity and bewilderment rather than a dispute! I found the user's actions odd but saw nothing to suggest they were a troll or similar. The situation has changed somewhat now, as text on the article notes the TOCright template is now proposed for deletion. I'll comment there & possibly on the user's talk page. Thanks.

I just looked at Special:Contributions/Ian_Pitchford, Around the time you write the above (28 June 2005) I found a few edits which inserted {{TOCright}} on various articles. I found far more edits, both before and after, of articles that don't use TOCright. I didn't look at every edit in his history, there are fgar too many. But I don't think the evidence supports a suggestion that this user effectively wishes to transform every article to the TOCright style, nor that he is doing little or nothing but insertign that template widely and without makign other contrabutions. Perhaps i am misreading the evidence. Perhaps you would care to supply a list of articles on which you feel that TOC right has been oddly or wantonly inserted? In any case the behavior of one editor does not have much to do with the merits of the template, IMO. DES 6 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)

Wiki put-down

A friend, who I have been trying to introduce to Wikepedia, has just emailed the following: Logged in as suggested. First reaction: unnecessarily complicated compared with Google. Tony, please tell me again, briefly please, why you think its better than Google. Bless you. Thanks, Peter I am stumped for a snappy answer, apart from saying they are not the same and WP does allow the reader to contribute. Apwoolrich 2 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)

Um, well, Google is a search engine, they have no content of their own. But we're an encyclopedia, we're meant to have lots of articles and clicky things and... um... such. We're not a replacement for Google, but many times a quick search here will net a great article quicker than with Google. And, heck, if it's not here you flippin' well add it yourself! That's what got me hooked in the first place... :) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 2 July 2005 09:59 (UTC)

Wait, is your friend saying that it is easier to find reliable information on google then the great Wiki? That is....ehmm....I.....ahh.....i just don't know what to say.... gkhan July 2, 2005 13:07 (UTC)

My proposed response: "Google is an index of everything on the web. Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia in history, written by volunteers. You can use Google to find resources - including articles in Wikipedia. If you know exactly what you want to read about, it is often quickest to go to Wikipedia directly, as it will likely have a well-written, detailed article on the topic, and you don't have to wade through pages of Google hits to find one which is actually useful. And if something you know is missing from an article, you can directly add it yourself: just click the 'edit this page' link at the top of an article."--Eloquence* July 2, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Hi friend,

You should appreciate it because the media tells you to do so

Regards,

lots of issues | leave me a message 2 July 2005 18:28 (UTC)

Err, that likelyhood of Wikipedia having a well-written, detailed article has become somewhat diluted. It's actually not that often. Here's a story of my own: a while back, a friend of mine was doing research for a paper (for University) on the general topic of business administration. When he researched online, he told me that he was having difficulties finding interesting, free sources. I immediately recommended Wikipedia, and since he was new to it, I helped him research here. We found the articles, but he told me that it was way too superficial and would add nothing to the basics that he already had. Since I had been boasting about Wikipedia for a while before we actually researched it, which led him to take a closer look at the project, he ended up hitting me with the following sentence: too many people writing about tv shows, not nearly enough writing about the relevant topics. Oh, the infamy! Redux 4 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)

I emailed my friend the responses above (before Redux's)and had this back in reply!

Wow ! That was quick and thorough! However, I think I'll stick to Google. Tony, its OK for you youngsters, but we 1920's people are horrified......

1.If something you know is missing from an article, you can directly add it yourself: just click the 'edit this page' link at the top of an article."

You think one should be able to "edit" the Encyclopaedia Brittanica? Ouch!

2.Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia in history, written by volunteers.

The ultimate DIY? I prefer the work of the experts, even though they were paid! You'd rather trust a bunch of volunteers?

3.And, heck, if it's not here, you flippin' well add it yourself! Good grief !

Tony, the way I interpret the Internet data (Yes, I could be wrong: you're the expert), Wikipedia gets about 700 hits per minute. Google gets 85 000 hpm.Are so may people wrong? Would you buy a car which sells less than 1% of what Ford sells?

Clearly I have a LONG way to go in raising awareness with my friend, who is, I might add, very computer and internet savvy. Just shows how some people regard us! Apwoolrich 4 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)

If he's focusing on relative popularity, he may want to take a look at this. As of today, #52 with a bullet. --Arcadian 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)

If he's comparing Wikipedia with Google, then I would point out that, whenever he uses Google, he ends up getting the information from an arbitrary third party site. The quality of those can vary considerably, from the professional educator, through the DIY effort, to the professional misleader and POV-pusher. Of course, there are many things I find Google better for than Wikipedia (especially given the War Against Useful External Links), but to say that he prefers Google because he prefers the work of experts doesn't really make sense on the whole. Now, if he's talking about Google Scholar, maybe. Bovlb 2005-07-05 00:43:10 (UTC)

With a website, you can publish whatever (mis)information you choose and it's there "forever", but with a wiki anyone can click an edit link to amend it as they see fit.

Professionals have been bemoaning our inevitable downfall due to our open editability, and yet all the vandals and POV pushers the world can throw at us haven't stopped us from rising to new heights.

You could also point him to some of our Featured Articles, especially if there are ones that are of his topic(s) of interest. Then challenge him to compare it to its equivalent in any up-to-date professional encyclopedia. See which one comes out more thorough! :)

Also we've got audio versions of many of them, furthering our goal of comprehensive information being accessible to all, not just sighted and English-fluent visitors. Now where's a Japanese or spoken Britannica when you need one? :) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 04:57 (UTC)

I knew there was something that bothered me about the idea of comparing Wikipedia with Google, and I've realized a good way of putting it: Comparing Wikipedia with Google is like comparing a card catalog with an almanac. Of course more people use a card catalog than an almanac, some of them are using it to find the almanac, but others are using it for lots of other things. He's got his levels mixed up. JesseW 22:00, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you have articles on oncocytoma?

I,tdxiang,would like to know if there are any articles on this kidney tumour?Tdxiang 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)

There's a very nice button on the toolbar, it's called "Search". But you'd have known that already, I suppose. James Bell 4 July 2005 13:21 (UTC)

You can also go to a more general article and make a link like this: oncocytoma. And see if it goes to an existing page or not. If not, write one. -SV|t 5 July 2005 02:27 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't seem to have much on this subject. Google[2] seems to have a few useful articles. You might like to ask on the Reference Desk. Bovlb 2005-07-09 12:45:49 (UTC)

Number of Edits

I tried to vote today but I was shown a message saying: "Sorry, you made only 128 edits before 00:00, May 30, 2005. You need at least 400 to be able to vote." My question is, how do I find out how many edits have I made until today ? Is manually counting the number of pages under 'my contributions' the only way ? Thanks. - sikander July 5, 2005 13:34 (UTC)

There's a tool you can use to count your edits: http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits_14_utf8. —Charles P. (Mirv) 5 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

Kate's tool does not seem to be working since the latest upgrade. Apwoolrich 8 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

Dis-ambiguation

I see several dis-ambiguation pages that people want moved in WP:RM that I disagree with for the following reason:

All dis-ambiguation pages that are large (specifially, too large to reach the {{disambig}} footer template without scrolling down should have the "(disambiguation)" suffix in their article title to clarify that it is a dis-ambiguation page, not a list. Georgia guy 5 July 2005 22:09 (UTC)

"Without scrolling down" is a vague criterion — on what size of screen with what size of font? Surely the opening sentence "Foo may refer to:" and the list format makes it quite clear what is going on. Gdr 7 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

I don't really understand the problem. I was under the impression that {{disambig}} was meant to be a header, not a footer. Grutness...wha? 7 July 2005 23:57 (UTC)

I've seen it used as both. Personally I don't care where it goes, but if it can in any way be made "invisible" due to large amounts of dab content, then it should certainly be at the top. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)

Wait a minute! It says inside Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) that the template goes at the bottom. Georgia guy 8 July 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Frankly, the disambiguation notice just isn't that important. It's a nice little explanation but has no functional purpose, and doesn't hurt anything if it's omitted at all. Therefore I think there's no reason to emphasize making it visible - bottom is fine and more consistent. Deco 9 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

I think it's reasonably clear that a page is not a list if it gives lots of different meanings - for example, orange, which I just moved from orange (disambiguation) clearly opens with "the word orange can refer to ...". People are more likely to type in the word "orange" when looking for something to do with the colour, or the fruit, etc. than "orange (disambiguation)", so not only for clarity but for technical reasons, if there are many key meanings for a word, I think it should be at just the word rather than appending (disambiguation) to it. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:16, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked users can edit their own talk pages

In response to a discussion on wikien-l [3] [4], I've experimentally enabled a feature to allow blocked users to edit their own user talk page. I'm not expecting this to be controversial, I just wanted to let you know so that you wouldn't be confused when you see it happen. -- Tim Starling July 7, 2005 22:50 (UTC)

I noticed that. A very welcome feature I must say, seeing as up until a few hours ago I was blocked thanks to Xtra's crappy simul-sharing of IPs (time to write a nasty letter). And anyway, what can they do "bad" on their own space, other than write "WIKEPIDANS R ALL BASTIDS!1!!!!1!1!" and rewrite "stop your vandalism" comments to read "you are an OK guy!" or something like that to further illustrate their guilt? :) Master Thief Garrett^Talk 8 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

Two questions (1) clarify is it only restricted to editing their talk page, and not to other things so they can't move their talk page onto the main namespace, and (2) is it mentioned that they can do this in the Wikipedia:Mediawiki namespace boilerplate text given to blocked users? Dunc|☺ 8 July 2005 12:01 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Only edits are allowed, not other operations such as moves. At least that's the theory, feel free to test it. I edited the relevant message myself. -- Tim Starling July 8, 2005 16:12 (UTC)

I found it problematic. See my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block behaviour changes. --cesarb 9 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

I need your help

I've started the Pornography Portal and I need your help in order to complete it. thanks. --Haham hanuka 8 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)

I've payed a visit to it (out of diligence, people!). Someone has already put a neutrality dispute tag there. Doesn't seem correct though, since the controversy that it may cause does not revolve around the neutrality of the portal, but rather its appropriateness. And anyways, I opened the talk page expecting to see a lengthy discussion, but found only two comments, so hardly a dispute going on. About the subject of the portal, I really don't know. On one hand, there's no ignoring that Pornography is the number one subject on the internet, so it is visible and relevant enough (from this perspective) to deserve a portal; On the other hand, this is bound to raise a lot of eyebrows, may be an unnecessary stretch... About the content, gotta be careful not to focus on just one topic. "Pornography" is far more comprehesive a topic than the movie porn industry. For instance, the extract from the Wikipedia article that opens the portal touches this complexity. It could be a nice touch of neutrality to illustrate it with something other than a picture of a pornographic actress. That's just my impression. Regards, Redux 8 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Impressive, considering the subject matter. I'm just concerned that people will come there expecting a free gallery of hotties and complain when there aren't any. Or constantly edit to put a GIANT topless girl in place of the portal. Or something. But those are just minor things. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 9 July 2005 00:53 (UTC)

Good point, this portal will be highly susceptible to vandalism and misinterpretation. It's likely to take a lot of patience and work to maintain. You've got to be reeally up for it. Regards, Redux 23:47, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the first time someone spams it with a child-friendly image. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

A substantial portion of Wikipedia's top few hundred most popular articles are sex and pornography related. These include List of sex positions, Sex, Penis, Sexual intercourse, Masturbation, Anal sex, Vagina, Playboy, Oral sex, Jenna Jameson, Clitoris, Orgasm, Goatse.cx, Cowgirl sex position, Pamela Anderson, Nudity, Cunt, Leapfrog sex position, Breast, Child pornography, Tubgirl, List of female porn stars, Homosexuality and many many more. Scour this list if you're bored. Anyway, I support the venture. We are attracting a lot of the Internet's sex traffic and it should be well organized. --Alterego 23:54, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Article about Chile deaths during Pinochet's presidency

Hi! Seeing that I originated the article on the Deaths in Ciudad Juarez, and, as Puerto Rican, I worry about the wellfare of all fellow Latin Americans in general, I wonder if anyone has written an article about the deaths and dissapearances of people during the Pinochet p[residency. If not, Im interested in making an npov, very well researched article about it.

Thanks and God bless!

Sincerely yours, Antonio Latinos unidos por Siempre Martin

I wanna paste a Fei Ge photo from a newspaper site]].

Can I do that?Will I infringe copyright?Tdxiang 9 July 2005 03:51 (UTC)

• Yes, you would be infringing copyright. However, since he hosts a television show, a screenshot of him from that show would normally be considered fair use.--Pharos 9 July 2005 04:01 (UTC)
  • Does that mean that say, a photo of Alexis Arguello boxing during a fight would constitute fair use too?

Antonio The Explosive Fat Man...or is that woman? Martin

• You might want to look at Wikipedia:Fair use. Remember that we want to be fairly conservative in our use of "fair use", and that we have to avoid the trap of wishful thinking. Bovlb 2005-07-09 13:02:12 (UTC)

• If screenshots from film and television are so commonly accepted here, I should think a single frame extracted from a recording of a boxing match would be equally fair use. See Template:Screenshot. Of course, a copyrighted still photograph taken during a boxing match would not be eligible.--Pharos 20:27, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone allowed to borrow content like this?

http://www.1-electric.com/articles/Richard_Rood

I ran across this on a search for the wrestler Rick Rude. Looks awfully familiar to me. Too familiar.

The short answer is definitely yes. Wikipedia's content is licensed under the GFDL, see Wikipedia:Copyrights. The page you reference includes the same license, and credits Wikipedia (with a link to the Wikipedia article), and so seems to be in full compliance with Wikipedia's licensing terms (I am not a lawyer and this should not be construed as a legal opinion). -- Rick Block (talk) July 9, 2005 18:33 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, but... Source: Original text from the article in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia: Richard Rood. It's already on WP, indeed it CAME from us! :) Garrett^Talk 21:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

You may also want to check out this page: Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks — J3ff 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Mushroom Kingdom

This is a call for anyone who wants to help stop a cabal attempting to subvert all notable and non-vanity topics in Wikipedia. Under a thin accusation of "vanity", a cabal has nominated an article about the famous site The Mushroom Kingdom. Not only has this "vanity" claim been discredited, it was also revealed that the "delete" participants nominated this for deletion because they hate that The Mushroom Kingdom's equivalence to IMDB. Most of the voters have discussed the issue and found out these factors were the main reason The Mushroom Kingdom is on vfd. Please vote "keep" on this particular listing as a blow against conspiracy that is not only openly hostile, but "vanity"-crying and anti-TMK as well. Wikipedia should be a place where notable topics can have articles without being deleted by a vast anti-TMK conspiracy. Youngblood 23:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete wtf -83.129.28.224 01:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

NY1 plagarizes off Wikipedia

""Paddy" is a common Irish name and was used in the past as a pejorative to insult Irish people." from [5]

compare to the sentence also appearing in paddy wagon -- generated long before the story.

lots of issues | leave me a message 22:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, that's pretty obvious. Someone "congratulate" User:Zosodada, whose wording that was. I'll have to check if they're using that on-air too.--Pharos 22:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Who do we complain to? I mean, this is a pretty high-profile rip. Garrett^Talk 00:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• NO DO NOT COMPLAIN Wait for their writer/researchers to borrow larger portions (maybe a lead story will be based around a Wikipedia in the news article) -- then we can shout our grievance, which will be interesting enough to ripple. That would be PRESTIGIOUS. It may never happen but complaining over one line is an unnoteworthy technicality and therefore not PRESTIGIOUS enough to be worth doing and may ruin the path to future 'PRESTIGIOUSNESS. lots of issues | leave me a message 00:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• nonono... I didn't mean complain like that... gah, poor choice of words as always :) I mean it would be nice to send a brief note of thanks. Like, "hey, we were very proud to find you quoted us in (article)! Thank you so much!" and leave it at that. When they realise uncredited people are taking notice of their uncreditedness they might decide to mention us over even minor things like this. And certainly I agree we should stave off any serious complaints until serious breaches occur. Garrett^Talk 01:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Don't worry I didn't misinterpret your words -- I urged noone to complain or even bring note of this ommission because it would hamper the potential path to future PRESTIGIOUSNESS. We want the researchers at NY1 to believe it is fine to verbatim copy Wikipedia. Hopefully their ignorance will eventually create an enormous error! lots of issues | leave me a message 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm... the wording isn't in the broadcast (which is accessible from a streaming link on the page). In fact, the broadcast didn't explain the idea very well at all, which is presumably why the web version included the unattributed bit. But I guess it wouldn't sound professional for them to say, "According to Wikipedia, the free internet encyclopedia..." as some other media outlets have. BTW, this is a pretty manufactured story... the "paddywagon" quote was actually in a NY1 interview and noone mentions anything about it on-camera; I think they only realized it was offensive to some people back at the studio.--Pharos 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Relax people, one sentence using common wording isn't plagiarism. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, especially when it is simply stating a well-known fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

address

i need william rehnquists address o i can end a letter and card virginia jeffers

Send it to:

William Rehnquist United States Supreme Court Washington DC

It will find its way to the right pile. lots of issues | leave me a message 21:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You can Google his name or check out some U.S. Judicial agnecy websites. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

AGWIII is Alvan Grayson Walker is REXJUDICATA is VATRAY...

With a little research you will see that AGWIII is Alvan Grayson Walker is REXJUDICATA is VATRAY is Babbie is Barbara Diaz is Barbara Rodriguez and morphes into many other aliases. He is NO expert on Parents Without Rights..... research why he has no Parental Rights with his son... was his own behvior involved? Those poor people who follow Parents Without Rights.... if they knew the truth, would they still subscribe.....

• context? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RexJudicata, SqueakBox 05:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have an idea

Why dont we add CSS templates to wikipedia for new looks? --Simple Man 15:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you volunteering? -- Cyrius|✎ 16:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

If i can learn CSS good enough, yeah. --Simple Man 20:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The MySkin option in preferences will turn off the Monobook CSS styling, allowing you to build off the raw HTML structure in your user CSS. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments being selectively deleted off of talk pages!

Take a look at this. Comments being selectively deleted off of talk pages!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snowspinner&action=history

See July 14th. Ardonik's sarcastic comment is kept while the response is deleted.

You are the banned user Pioneer-12, and I claim my, whatever the heck it is people claim when they do this. Stop whining, you did this to yourself. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Uh, ok....

Maybe you should do a little research before you open your mouth?

As Bob Dillon said "Don't criticise what you can't understand."

I love it... someone selectively deletes comments, a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies and principles, and someone that points this out is "whining".

Cmon, Cyrius, open your mouth again. Got any more ignorant things to say?

© 2005, Pioneer-12

Snowspinner can delete whatever he wants from his talk page. It's his page. Rhobite 02:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Really? I thought the page was hosted by Wikipedia and had to adhere to certain standards. Oh, never mind...

Here's a better question... Do you RESPECT a person who selectively deletes sensible comments off of his talk page?

And is it a civil thing to do?

© 2005, Pioneer-12

Thank you for helping us block open proxies. Rhobite 02:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Since I suppose I have your attention, I'd like to make a quick comment. Please stop. Every single user licenses their comments under the GFDL here. It is a condition of using the site. And on the scale of things to become upset about here, it's pretty much dead last. No idea why you chose to make this minor problem (out of all possible things to get mad about) into a major dispute. I don't think anyone will hold it against you if you decide to license your comments and come back to the site. And I don't think people will hold it against you if you simply leave. But what you're doing now isn't productive. If you don't like Wikipedia, start your own fork or just go. Posting snarky comments from open proxies will get you no closer to your goal. Rhobite 02:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Nominate outstating WP work for WIKIMANIA

(not sure if this is news or misc. so posting in both)
CLICK HERE TO NOMINATE ARTICLES

In less than a month, the first WIKIMANIA wiki convention will be held. During the convention, they will award "best of" prizes for the different projects. Be sure to click the above link to nominate Wikipedia articles you think are worthy of consideration. Deadline is Aug 1, 2005 DAVODD 18:02, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a great place to select the most brilliant of brilliant prose. We should nominate the best brilliant prose ever written. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Articles on random pieces of PC software?

Is a writeup on J. Random PC App considered encyclopedic? I just came across Scientific Letter which is hideously badly written, which I could clean up very easily, but which I am not sure is worth the effort, if it should't be on WP in the first place. Steve Summit 12:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd say nominate it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion) and let the community decide whether it's encyclopediac or not. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. A random computer application is not by definition encyclopedic. Many of those are self-published by simply putting them on the web somewhere (and generally get less than one download per day). If the software is not widely in use, nor actually sold in stores, chances are it shouldn't have an article. Radiant_>|< 11:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• For software which is now obsolete, and is not sold anywhere, we can be a little more generous than the above, since no one stands to gain from promoting it. For some applications, especially those which predate the web, the Wikipedia article may be one of the few remnants existing.-gadfium 09:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

the apostrophe to abbreviate 'the seventies', etc., as in "1970's" instead of "1970s"

--220.235.42.134 15:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)Is there a Wiki policy on the use of the apostrophe in, for instance, 1970s? I notice that there are articles that say "1970's" and, as an English speaking Australian, I would say that is an unnecessary use of the apostrophe, but realise it is a 'style' thing. Richard Clark

The Manual of Style says no aprostrophe - see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Thryduulf 15:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the usual expectation is that in English, there is no apostrophe, except for possessive forms of the number, like "The year 1970's end was on December 31, 1970." as-opposed to the noun "The 1970s ended on December 31, 1979." --Mysidia 15:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no apostrophe. But the reason is that the numerals are merely a placeholder for words. When written out in full you don't say nineteen-seventie's, so similarly you don't say 1970's unless (as above) it's possessive. And this applies to any other abbreviation (PDAs, BAs, MDs) as well. No possessive, no comma. Garrett^Talk 20:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

RSS feed of the Article of the day?

Just checking, is there a RSS feed for the article of the day? I like to read it, but a lot of stuff I get off a RSS feed to my PDA and read at work. I cannot find a RSS feed for anthing wiki but I do thing it might be a good Idea for at least the article of the day. --198.190.160.3 09:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

link. See also: Wikipedia:Syndication --Alterego 19:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Constant improvement, or rot

The common concensus is that the Wikipedia process involves articles that start out short and coarse, and are gradually improved, until perfection is achieved; If there are disputes, after a few edits the article will settle on an agreed-upon wording that will please all the factions.

Unfortunately, after editing in Wikipedia for almost two years, I have reached a conclusion that this view might be a bit too optimistic. Instead of articles converging towards perfection, articles "drift" aimlessly, with numerous editors making changes that improve nothing and are nothing more than a "change for the sake of changing". Unless good editors come along once in a while to steer the article back into the "perfection" direction, the articles will drift into random crap.

My case study is Ariel Sharon, an article on the controversial Israeli prime minister. I have been following this article for over a year, and summarized my observations in Talk:Ariel Sharon (the first section, titled "First Paragraph"). I showed how a certain paragraph I added was randomly mutated for no real reason, and kept on mutating for a year, until someone simply came along and deleted it entirely. And I predict this cycle to continue.

Nyh 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A way of identifying the current "high water mark" of an article would be of great benefit to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the article validation feature of MediaWiki 1.5 which might move us in this direction seems to be vapourware for the time being. Pcb21| Pete 12:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This would be definitely way to increase quality of Wikipedia. Pavel Vozenilek 19:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

--edit conflict! Well, my comments address a high water mark as well. Not so much "great minds think alike" as "we are all drones of The Matrix" :) Garrett^Talk 12:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Well sometimes people see something and say "I wouldn't say it like that, I'd say it like this!" and so decide to alter it to fit the way they think perfection is. This is not necessarily a bad thing as some really impressive-sounding wordings can eventually surface when the previous editors just couldn't find right the words for it, but each person has a unique writing style, and, indeed (a frequent expression in my writing style), they will end up equalling each other out at times, as in your example.

Ideally there should be people out there who decide to become secret "guardians" of an article; at key changes in the flow they will assess the article based on the "penultimate" edition (for example, the revision that won Featured status) and revert or raise their concerns when it seems to have deviated from that.

This is why I like to see edit summaries used to the fullest; if I do decide to do a "useless" rewording of something I usually explain each and every little rewording, for example ""his hair loss" >> "his baldness" (more official term), "she was called after" >> "she was named after" (less awkward)". I put as much as the edit box allows, and sometimes I heavily abbreviate just to make it all fit!

But my wordiness is a good thing. If at all possible, the summary should "prove" the worth of your changes; if you've made fluffy changes (as it seems some have in this article), the summary won't be very "convincing", and so people could choose to say "r/v paragraph to agreed version; WhatsHerFace, your changes add nothing new to this section, see the talk page for rationale and clarification". Then they can explain to the editor that their change was pithy, and the editor can explain why they made it. This will help ensure the penultimate edition is maintained, and, eventually, bettered.

Hope that helps you. :) Garrett^Talk 12:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Question

How can I propose a new article? - In Danish Wikipwdia I've written about krøs = crooze.

--Baskholm 14:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This question would be better placed in the Help desk. If you need help with the contents of the article you want to create, you may try the Reference desk. For help translating from Danish into English, you can check Wikipedia:Requests for translation. I can tell you right now that we usually start new articles on our own, after verifying that there isn't an article on the subject already. Other than that, you may try to find users with a common interest in the topic you wish to develop and contact them in their talk pages. You may want to elaborate on the topic you want to write about, here or in an article with some connection with it — you can leave a message on said article's talk page, and maybe some of the people involved with it will take an interest and contact you about your proposal. Regards, Redux 19:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A Poor Example

On this page in a section called "RFC on SlimVirgin", I find I happen to think you're an asshole who fucks up everything he touches, you foolish, time-wasting bully!! [...] go ahead and complain about me if you want. It Is A Poor Example By An Ed. A Laughably Poor Example. 4.250.201.29 01:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

(He's talking about this section). Seems you misunderstood. After that it says "This is inserted as an example of a forbidden comment ... but I was illustrating a point..." so you've kind of taken that out of context. Still, thanks for voicing your concerns. If that really was what was being said we'd be, um, glad to know. Yeah. You know what I mean. Thanks. :) Garrett^Talk 11:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

He/she didn't mention the context, but they didn't take it out of context. They do know it's an example. They just think it's a poor example—and I have to concur; it's so over-the-top that it doesn't prove anything. Worse, it's so convincingly presented as "just an example" that as a reader you start to wonder if Ed didn't secretly mean some part of it... and that's definitely not what he was aiming for, I should think. JRM · Talk 17:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I only just now got the pun on "Ed Poor". I'm tired. JRM · Talk 17:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets and impersonation

Hi. I thought I'd post here so this may get a broader consideration. It has been brought to my attention (meaning, a user who thought I was an admin informed me of this) that the accounts Arrigo (talk · contribs) and Bhinneka (talk · contribs) may be sockpuppets of an anon contributor under the IP address 217.140.193.123 (talk · contribs) — this is actually accurate, since the anon contributes anonymously regularly, almost exclusively in biographic articles about noblesmen and royals. I lack the means (or the expertise) to confirm this, all I can say is that the "style" of writing is awfully similar, whatever that might mean. What prompted me to post this here, however, is that something rather serious has started happening: the user Antares911 has just been informed in his talk page, by Aoi, that Bhinneka has posted at least twice impersonating him (evidence provided: here and here). For all I know, this could be happening to other unaware users too. What now? Regards, Redux 14:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If there have been double votes at the VfD or if the sockpuppet account is created to purposely create arguments, then we have something to be concerned about. There are also legal sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Suckpuppets, but only if they don't seem to care about each other, mind only articles, and don't vote illegally. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

What makes you say that Bhinneka is being run by Arrigo/217.140.193.123? The writing style, topics, etc., suggest the account is being run by Antares911, not Arrigo. Choess 22:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am Aoi, the user who originally reported the "impersonations" to Antares911. I've been following a dispute between these users for a while now, and I read Choess's comment with great interest. There have been several accusations of sockpuppetting from both sides over the last couple of weeks and there is a huge amount of tension on both sides. I've looked at Bhinneka's contributions (which, interestingly enough, fall within the general 100-edit guideline mentioned on Wikipedia:Sockpuppets) and compared them to the writing styles, opinions, and subject areas of both the annonymous user and Antares. All three areas show a much greater similarity to Antares911 as opposed to the annonymous user, which now leads me to agree with Choess in believing that Bhinneka is a sockpuppet of Antares911. 青い(Aoi) 07:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I too am aware of the degree of continued tension between Antares and the anon. In fact, I had a run with the anon myself, but I was able to discontinue it when I realized I was beginning to loose my patience. Antares, however, has the same general interest as the anon: articles on noblesmen and royals, which has paved the way to many encounters. But I have had exchanges with Antares on talk pages, and it is my impression, and I can't stress this enough: it's my personal opinion, that Antares does not seem like a user who would resort to sockpuppets. The anon is a different story: he has a legitimate knowledge of the topic, and an overall genuine interest in contributing to the articles within this topic, but he is extremely aggressive in his remarks when opposed consistently. He has carried personal attacks to several users for no good reason (as if there even was a "good reason" for personal attacks), both in articles' talk pages and in some of the users' talk pages. When I mentioned the similarity in the writing of Bhinneka and the anon, I wasn't referring to the tone, but rather to the English language: Bhinneka's edits and the anon's show a very similar pattern of [small] mistakes in the use of the language. At least that was the "feeling" I got.
But why keep speculating, and arguably pointing fingers? Is there some way we can cross-ckeck the anon's IP (which is visible) and Antares911's with the IPs that are behind Arrigo and Bhinneka? If some of them are the same, or if some of them have the same origin, the mistery would be solved unequivocally. Regards, Redux 16:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your general summary. There is a way to check the IP addresses of users to determine sockpuppetry, however, I don't think this information is accessible unless you're a developer or have the CheckUser permission. In addition, I highly doubt if those people with access to such information would be willing to check the information for us due to privacy issues. The exception to this seems to be arbitration level interests. We could try to ask anyway as I'm really not too sure how the system works (perhaps they'll give us the information anyway?). 青い(Aoi) 20:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Arrigo/217.140.193.123 is correct in asserting that Antares911 has already used a sock puppet account at one time, ant33. The Bhinneka edits generally, IMO, resemble Antares (neither he nor the anon are native speakers, although Antares has a considerably better command of English), but there is one suspicious one: here. An IP check to see if Bhinneka is coming from .de or .fi would sort this out. Choess 17:11, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

As per Aoi's information, I wasn't aware that the information would be that difficult to come by. If there's privacy issues involved, I'd be willing to take a developer's word if (s)he were to tell us something like I have verified that "x" is a sockpuppet of "y" and "z" is a sockpuppet of "w". No need to actually divulge the ids. Without that information, there's no way to resolve this. We'd just keep running in circles, in a "he said, she said" kind of way. For instance, based on what I've seen from both Antares and the anon, the diff presented by Choess would, in my opinion, seem almost definately to be from the anon. If that's so, then obviously Bhinneka is a sockpuppet of the anon, as well as Arrigo.
In any case, it seems rather clear that Bhinneka and Arrigo are indeed sockpuppets, we just don't know who exactly is controlling them. It's bad form, especially since the puppets have been "enlisted" in the dispute between the anon and Antares — at least Arrigo, which has posted on pages where the anon had posted under the IP address, without any effort to identify the two as being the same person; essentially, in some of those pages it looks like Arrigo is providing peer support to the IP address. However, and again, this is my opinion, I believe that Antares911 can be reasoned out of it. The anon, I'm not so sure (at the very least, it will take a lot more convincing). Regards, Redux 22:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Excessive info on americans

Hello all. I have been going through the dates list i.e July 16 etc. and find that nearly half the births an deaths are filled with americans who would not be known outside USA. For instance american football players are barely known unless they commit a crime like O.J. Simpson. It's alright to include hollywood heroes and other sports which are followed by the whole world, but including american football and baseball etc. smacks of a bias (systemic probably). So if there is any possibility to cut down the american heavy list and ensure there is equal representation I suggest anyone come up with ideas. With all due respect, this is an universal encyclopedia not Encyclopedia Americanna. Thanks.--Idleguy 16:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see no real problem with the tendency to overfocus on people from the US. That happens because the majority of the people who contribute to the en.wp are from that country, at least those contributing to that list. I have no official source for this, I'm assuming. You could say it's systemic bias, but the only realistic way to counter it would be to start referencing people from other places and whose entries would be equally valid in similar amounts. The problem would be if people started opposing said personalities because they are "unknown" (where they live). For instance: if people can list every tailback that has ever played in the NFL, I can list every professional cricket player in activity in India. If people think that souldn't be done, then we can discuss cutting back on the American Football players. That was just an example, but it's all about finding balance. Regards, Redux 17:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I think Redux has covered it fairly well. It's not that the information on the US is excessive, it's that coverage of stuff outside the US is lacking. So write more articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The question is whether you want the date articles to be a way to categorise every biography article on Wikipedia, or if you want them to give a short list that readers will find interesting. The former avoids conflict over inclusion (or at least contains it to VFD). The latter clearly can't be acheived by addition alone. -- Tim Starling 06:28, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

What we need is to move some of the trivia to a separate years in U.S. series. Similar subpages already exist for Canada, Ireland, South Africa, and several other countries. - SimonP 14:32, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think what Simon says is just about what I envisaged. Everything that talks excessively about one nation can be hived off into a seperate section. My basis for such a seperation would be based on this simple question : "Would the said personality have the name/fame to be recognized by a reader from any other nation?" IF not then they should be removed since it could lead to a boring list of who's who from one and later on from many number of countries. tx. Idleguy 05:39, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

gmail invites

Anybody want a gmail invites? --Kiba 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll take yours if you take mine --Alterego 19:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You mean we invites each other? --Kiba 19:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to turn this into a forum or chat room about computers, see WP:NOT. A lot of other web forums have people who offer GMail accounts, like 419eater.com or several blogs. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL (Internet slang)

I believe this article is getting a bit out of hand. The list of "variants" has grown to 55 (including "lolbow" and "lolasagna"), and now we have an animated "lollercoaster." Are all the variants really in wide use? Joyous (talk) 21:26, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Probably not. Google should be able to confirm that. For instance, lolasagna scores 54 googles so is clearly not a notable meme. Radiant_>|< 08:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject automation bot

Who wrote the wonderful widget which weeded through the wiki and generated "edit suggestions" for Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax? I'd like to have a word with you on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. --Smack (talk) 03:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

can I put the lyrics of Fuhua Secondary School on an article?Or will i violate copyright?

Tdxiang 07:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Song lyrics are generally copyright violations. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright, we don't take primary sources (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not p. 1.4). --Smack (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of issues, in a vote, and by a sysop (no less)

I think the community needs to consider how acceptable is, and what to do, as User:Deb when making a RM regarding article Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse, represents the case in the page "Requests to Move" by alleging that the move would be "back" to Alix of Hesse. However it is very clear that Deb misrepresents the issue by such allegation: the article has never been at Alix of Hesse and such address does not yet exist (as everyone can check). Thus the proposed move cannot be "back" to that.
And, Deb claims as her reason for move, by the brief presentation space in general page RM that "The present article title is untenable. However, being "untenable" is an opinionated allegation and does not have any place in proper representation of renaming need. There Deb fails to present the proposal in neutral terms.
Moreover, in the Talk page (Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse) when giving her grounds for proposed move, Deb says "Arrigo, who carried out the move to the present name, evidently has no understanding of these standards". That is clearly a personal attack. And moreover, has no solid grounds. The answer, predictably, was "In my opinion, evidently Deb has no understanding of these standards".
Deb has done this as a user. IMO it is important to remember that she is also a sysop, from whom exemplary behavior should be required.
In that short space, Deb has apparently misrepresented a case in general RM page, also used only an opinionated opinion in general RM page as the only reason for move, and also made a personal attack.
As RfC-procedure is too heavy to go through, I am asking what are means of community to make the said Deb behave better / and could someone withdraw her powers. 217.140.193.123 16:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know which name is correct, but from the mess of redirects and double redirects I beleive that at one time or another the article has been called:

• Alexandra Fedorovna of Hesse
• Alexandra of Hesse (this is where most inbound links point to)
• Alexandra Romanov
• Princess alix of hesse and by rhine
• Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine
• Princess Alix of Hesse (I presume this is the title Deb is referring to)
• Alix of Hesse and by Rhine

I have protected the page against moves, which will stop normal users moving the page again. Removing a users' admin power can only be done by a Steward or Developer I belive, and unless this is self-requested is always controversial. If the talk page and requested moves pages arent' enough then an RfC is the best way to go.

In the mean time though, somebody should correct all the links so they point to the current location. Thryduulf 16:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not a Steward, it's a Bureaucrat, or at least according to WP:RFA (unless that's different again). But, regardless, a public dressing-down is done in very extreme circumstances. In this situation I'd say a Request for Comment would be sufficient. I've fixed the double redirects, but there's still a quagmire of "what links here" to attend to one day. Garrett^Talk 23:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Calling all Roman scholars

Can someone have a look at Flaccus (composer). The only Google refs I can find for this guy are at Wikipedia and mirror sites. I admit I'm not a Roman scholar, and that we learn something new every day, but it seems very suspicious to me. Moriori 00:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Riiiiiight... um, very suspect. I've never heard of Roman music existing, and I'm sure we don't even know what notation system they used--if any, for example medieval jongleurs memorised everything. So I'd say it could be marked with {{fact}} or whatever it is (y'know, where it says "doesn't differentiate between fact and fiction" or whatnot) until such time as we can have it properly proven. Just like Jedi Master Obius, sounding real doesn't mean you are. And Flaccus ~> flaccid ~> non-erect penis, so possibly some sort of joke. Garrett^Talk 01:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC) --I'll try to have a look at that book it refers to though, unless someone else beats me to it of course. If all else fails this can be taken to Vfd as the truth is bound to surface there. Garrett^Talk 03:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, just now saw this. It's not a hoax, but there is some controversy over whether the one surviving bit of Roman music is actually by Flaccus (it probably isn't, at least according to the New Grove). Flaccus was a slave or freedman who supplied music for the comedies by Terence. A 10th century manuscript referenced in Denkmäler altgriechischer Musik (Nuremberg, 1970) contains a single line of music allegedly from Terence, and by Flaccus; but the author of the Grove article says that it is not authentic, without further elaborating. Guess I'll have to fix the article ... Antandrus (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so the music isn't in an original format, ah... that's more believable then. Slightly. :) Garrett^Talk 04:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I don't have it in front of me to see what it looks like, and I don't know if the Romans had the ancient Greek musical notation in the 2nd century BCE ... at any rate not a scrap has survived. We'll probably never know. Not a shred, not a single note even chiseled on stone. (See Seikilos epitaph for an example of the Greek notation of the period). (Oh, and how would anyone in the 10th century have learned to read the ancient notation even if they found some? hmmm...) Antandrus (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I added everything from both editions of Grove. All that is really known about Flaccus is that he was a composer of music for the comedies of Terence, but that bit of music is probably spurious. Antandrus (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparent invalid message from Wikipedia

I got this message at my private e-mail address today.

"Someone (probably you, from IP address XXXXXXXXX) requested that we send you a new Wikipedia login password. The password for user "Richman" is now "XXXXXXXXX". You should log in and change your password now."

I had not requested a password change at all. When I went to Wikipedia my old password worked fine. What is going on? Is this some sort of a phishing or scam?

David Richman

• It certainly sounds phishy to me. You should definitely NOT change your password.--Pharos 03:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's the "Mail me a new password" system. Posting the new password here was quite possibly the worst thing you could have done. Go "change" your password immediately by "changing" it to what you were previously using before somebody steals your account. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Eh, what's the deal with this sytem? It's very strange. You can just type in anyone's user name and send them a password, and at that time they have two working passwords? --Alterego 04:38, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely it. It's just a lost password system, but sends to the signup address. In this case it doesn't erase your old passwords (like forums do) so instead gives you an alternate password, which is also valid. Certainly this particular email may have had a false link to capture account info, but the process behind it is completely real. Garrett^Talk 05:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a standard lost password system as you would see anywhere. How else would it work? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what is going on. The IP number is wrong for me and the return address for the e-mail was wiki@wikimedia.org. Of course that could be a cover and if I had answered the e-mail they might have gotten some information. If I did change my password I'm not sure how anybody could steal my account. As a matter of fact, since my old password worked I don't know how this would operate. Is Wikipedia so insecure that someone could know when you changed a password and what it was? How can I contact anybody at Wikipedia (I could not find a way) to find out if my account has been stolen?

No, it's not like that. All it is is that someone can enter a user name and choose "mail me a new password" and it's sent to the email address associated with the password. It then says to check your email, where they've given you the new password. However if you don't have access to that email account you can't GET that email. If the URL had a redirection at the end it could have been to trap IDs (read phishing for more on this), but there is no way to use a legitimate Wikipedia mailing system to steal IDs. Don't worry, everything's OK! :) Garrett^Talk 05:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I hope so. I did not try the password they sent because I was afraid that it might work, but my old password did work. Is it possible that they have an alternate password into my account? My guess is that the phishers (assuming that is what they were) assumed that I would think it was a real message from Wikipedia- answer it and somehow give away my password. They did send it to my correct e-mail address. How did that happen?

May I also ask why you are "Master Thief"??

I had one of these on 12 July - see my post on the Technical Pump. In my case my private email address was right but the username cited was not, which was why I smelt a rat. Apwoolrich 07:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a real message from Wikipedia. When you go to log in, there is a "Mail me a new password" button. When that button is hit, it takes the given user name and looks to see if there is an email address on file for that user name. If there is an email address, it generates a new password and sends out the email you received. The password is only sent to that address, it is not displayed to the person who pushed the button, and the only insecurity was you posting the new password here yourself. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about that later. However that password does not work anyway (I did change it before I posted to here- the only way the first password could have worked, I think, was if there could have been two passwords at the same time). At the time I did not mention that I had altered my password because I did not understand what had happened. I'm still not sure as I don't know who would have requested a new password in my name!

I have hopes that all is well. I should have blanked it out myself, but I did not think that it was actually from you. I still do not know how I got the message as I have not been on Wikipedia for a while to actually work on anything.

I might add that I DID NOT try the password that was sent to me bewfore I changed it, only my old one.

Sorry about not signing and dating- just noticed the tool bar mark.

I guess that is the end of it- sorry for being such a computer illiterate! After several bad experiences I tend to be a bit careful (although perhaps not careful enough.)

--Richman 13:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I just loveeeee this site

I love this site. I wish I could get every christian I know to read it. Christians do not realize just how much has gone into the making of the Christian religion or the putting together of the bible. They seem to think that the bible and the church just popped out of thin air as soon as Jesus went to be with the father. Thank you so much for being here and for allowing those of us who cannot afford to pay for such information, to utilize this site all the same. I am not able at this present moment to contribute, but be rest assured that in the future, this will be the first place I send a donation, to express my extreme gratitude.

We appreciate contributions of information and time, too! Anything you can do to help. - Omegatron 13:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)